If you had paid attention in Chemistry class, you would know the law of mass conservation, sometimes called the The Principle of Atom Conservation (Antoine Lavoisier's 1789)
Michael Moore exposes green energy as a fraud
- Thread starter Gooseifur
- Start date
Why is it that when movie stars (i.e. actors) take the podium at the Oscars to lecture everyone about climate change everyone listens to them, but when a world renowned investigative director produces a film with testimony from scientists and experts, everyone questions it?
Another non-scientist.
3rd episode of Inside the Mind of Bill Gates covers this well.
Like I said watch the movie it's full of scientists who dispute biomass as an acceptable green energy source. Then get back to me. They spent their lives in science unlike you or I.
Because it makes them feel good about themselves yet they don't know their being given snow jobs by the energy industry.
Talk for yourself. My knowledge of Chemical Engineering does not come from Youtube.
I try not to get into criticizing people based on their appearance just because I don’t happen to like them for other reasons. Objectively speaking, though, Moore looks awful. He’s always been an overweight guy but recently he looks like he has really put on a lot of weight. He also looks like he has aged quite a bit. He just looks like someone who is in poor health. I have to wonder how much longer he’s gonna be able to keep going.
Reverend Al Sharpton used to be very obese but he has really taken control of his health and trimmed down. The Rev is 66 and still going strong...Michael Moore is also 66 but looks like he could drop dead from a heart attack at any moment.
It will probably be the same ratio to Trump as before.
What should concern the Dems is not voting for either. Especially within certain demographics that carried Obama but failed to carry Clinton.
Lol. As always I'm flattered you feel the need to think about me.I don’t think anyone has actually studied the Bro’s to get accurate numbers on them. They have a large presence on Twitter but Twitter can amplify things and make them look bigger than they are.
Nobody is saying all Bernie Supporters are like you, though. You and the Bro’s are a special case.
Stop trying to deny your own existence, though, B1000; I don’t think that’s very healthy for you.
FWIW...I actually learn stuff from talking to you here. You provide me with a window into the thinking of the Bernie Bro’s. The stuff I learn from you is frequently appalling and disturbing but it is what it is.
Nah, its just a handful of people like you on some dark corner of the internet.
I'm betting in the 15% range again.
Biden is down about Five points from what Hillary was at this point in 2016. He is also down overall about 5 points with minorities than Hillary was.
I'd say it's 50/50 right now. Trump is a nightmare with his briefings but Biden is also incoherent on his podcasts.
So truly awful choices.
Likely butler got it on the darknet or whatever 8chan has become.
All the polls have Trump down around 8%, and all the states in play are looking very bad for Trump now.
Not to mention that the virus is just hitting the Trump states now.
Coronavirus spreads to Trump country
Trump's demographics are also the virus' demographics, like Trump himself.
The European Union’s proposals for revising its renewable energy policies are greenwashing and don’t solve the serious flaws, say environmental groups.
The EU gets 65 per cent of its renewable energy from biofuels – mainly wood – but it is failing to ensure this bioenergy comes from sustainable sources, and results in less emissions than burning fossil fuels. Its policies in some cases are leading to deforestation, biodiversity loss and putting more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than burning coal.
“Burning forest biomass on an industrial scale for power and heating has proved disastrous,” says Linde Zuidema, bioenergy campaigner for forest protection group Fern. “The evidence that its growing use will increase emissions and destroy forests in Europe and elsewhere is overwhelming.”
On 30 November the European Commission unveiled a draft “clean energy” package for the period up to 2030. On the surface, these proposals address some of the issues with existing renewable energy policies.
But environmental groups who have been analysing the proposals say that the changes will make little difference.
“It’s almost worse than doing nothing,” says Sini Erajaa, the bioenergy policy officer for BirdLife Europe & Central Asia, who describes the changes as greenwashing.
Burning biomass
For instance, one proposed change is to apply the EU’s sustainability criteria to biomass used in heat and power plants whose output is 20 megawatts or more. “This means, for instance, that electricity and heat from biomass have to produce at least 80 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels by 2021 and 85 per cent less by 2026,” states a memo on the revised renewable energy directive.
You might think this will ensure that burning biomass does not result in higher greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuel use, but far from it. That statement is misleading because it does not make clear that the EU’s method for calculating emissions assumes burning biomass produces no CO2 at all. “Emissions from the fuel in use shall be taken to be zero for biofuels and bioliquids,” states a 2009 directive.
The assumption is that these emissions don’t have to be counted because the growth of plants soaks up as much CO2 as is emitted when they are burned. But this assumption is not true on the timescales that matter for limiting climate change. Burning wood can result in higher emissions than burning coal.
This fact is not controversial. Buried deep in the EU’s own impact assessment is an acknowledgement that burning forest biomass is not carbon neutral, and that using some forms of forest biomass can increase emissions.
“Biogenic emissions remain high (higher than emissions from fossil fuels) beyond a policy-relevant timeframe for sawn wood, stumps, coarse dead wood,” it states on page 106.
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...a-disaster-for-the-environment/#ixzz6KaDCr4Wl
The EU gets 65 per cent of its renewable energy from biofuels – mainly wood – but it is failing to ensure this bioenergy comes from sustainable sources, and results in less emissions than burning fossil fuels. Its policies in some cases are leading to deforestation, biodiversity loss and putting more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than burning coal.
“Burning forest biomass on an industrial scale for power and heating has proved disastrous,” says Linde Zuidema, bioenergy campaigner for forest protection group Fern. “The evidence that its growing use will increase emissions and destroy forests in Europe and elsewhere is overwhelming.”
On 30 November the European Commission unveiled a draft “clean energy” package for the period up to 2030. On the surface, these proposals address some of the issues with existing renewable energy policies.
But environmental groups who have been analysing the proposals say that the changes will make little difference.
“It’s almost worse than doing nothing,” says Sini Erajaa, the bioenergy policy officer for BirdLife Europe & Central Asia, who describes the changes as greenwashing.
Burning biomass
For instance, one proposed change is to apply the EU’s sustainability criteria to biomass used in heat and power plants whose output is 20 megawatts or more. “This means, for instance, that electricity and heat from biomass have to produce at least 80 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels by 2021 and 85 per cent less by 2026,” states a memo on the revised renewable energy directive.
You might think this will ensure that burning biomass does not result in higher greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuel use, but far from it. That statement is misleading because it does not make clear that the EU’s method for calculating emissions assumes burning biomass produces no CO2 at all. “Emissions from the fuel in use shall be taken to be zero for biofuels and bioliquids,” states a 2009 directive.
The assumption is that these emissions don’t have to be counted because the growth of plants soaks up as much CO2 as is emitted when they are burned. But this assumption is not true on the timescales that matter for limiting climate change. Burning wood can result in higher emissions than burning coal.
This fact is not controversial. Buried deep in the EU’s own impact assessment is an acknowledgement that burning forest biomass is not carbon neutral, and that using some forms of forest biomass can increase emissions.
“Biogenic emissions remain high (higher than emissions from fossil fuels) beyond a policy-relevant timeframe for sawn wood, stumps, coarse dead wood,” it states on page 106.
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...a-disaster-for-the-environment/#ixzz6KaDCr4Wl
When the polls come out the headlines only show the national numbers. You have to go to the linked polls and look at the guts of it. They will give breakdowns in various demographics.
I encourage you to visit The Hill website. Especially the YouTube channel The Hill: Rising. They have great insight and polling data. Then go look at them yourself to confirm.
Lol. I have never visited the Dark Net or any of the Chans thx. Just media other than CNN cheerleading.
Zero Hedge?
Russian Television?
The Buffalo News?
Or...of course...The Chapo Trap House podcast!
The Hill: Rising
Kyle Kulinski
David Dole(Canadian)
Start there. Not extreme in the least. They just see both political parties for what they are.
Also look up Ryan Grim from the Intercept.
And Matt Tahibi independent Journalist (just left Rolling Stone)
That will start you on the path to seeing some truth.
